Regarding last night : Immigration & multiculturalism

[Mandy]

I totally agree with George about this.

There was one caller who said there should be no immigration controls (i.e. totally free movements globally). That rang alarm bells, and puts the issue into a debating context : whether nations should have immigration controls {as I believe they have to}, and if so, on what basis, e.g. need (such as refugees), wealth (if you have "x" in the bank), hiring capability (if you employee "y" number of people), skills (if you have certain skills/qualifications .. i.e. a point system like in Canada), family links (if relatives are in the country), quota system (random annual draw, like the US has), ministerial discretion (i.e. who you know, or which minister you suck the toe of, or if your "employer" makes donation to the party in power) etc.

Note : George didn't say he agreed with the caller.

The "isolationists" would set the hurdle so high that it would be effectively a blanket ban on immigration from their non-preferred countries. And even worse, they may try to "encourage" non-favoured people to leave (which is effectively ethnic cleansing, i.e. a War Crime).

Over to the forum ..


p.s. Sorry to non-limpet likers ..

[Colston]

When someone mentioned that Britain was full he mentioned looking out of an airplane window whilst flying over Britain to see the wide empty spaces...

...I like those empty spaces.

[Mandy]

Those empty spaces tend to be farm land, and there is / was the European Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) which gave farmers 000's of pounds a year sometimes so they DO NOT grow things.

When 1st responders can't afford houses, wouldn't it be better that a relatively small amount is turned to houses for the people who need it and who make this country tick, and who come to your rescue when in need ? Wouldn't this country benefit from that, rather than artificially restricting the supply of property so the rich get richer, and the wealth divide increases (and you pay more taxes via stamp duty and inheritance tax .. i.e. a family will likely lose their home when someone dies) ?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/rss/-/1/hi/business/6544577.stm
"Property woe for public workers
Public sector workers such as teachers, nurses, police and firefighters cannot afford to buy homes in seven out of 10 UK towns, the Halifax bank has said. "

Just like in the USA, the more people in the country, the larger the "tax base" on which the nation's survival depends, which also means that for "infrastructure" costs (e.g. cost of BBC propaganda), the cost per person would be less, so all would benefit.

p.s. Issue of green field land could be argued independently of immigration .. i.e. even with no immigration, is it right for so much land to be legally restricted to farm land use only. That could be another thread ...

Note : If you break down or are lost in those empty spaces, you wouldn't like it then .. i.e. they look nice from high up, but down there you have all the problems of a lack of infrastructure, e.g. drainage/toilets, phone / internet connection, mobile coverage etc.
I don't think you really would like it living in empty / under-developed space .. with very few neighbors or shops to visit.

[faceless]

A lot of the empty space in the north of Scotland was caused by the ethnic-cleansing that took place during the Highland Clearances.

[Mandy]

well said faceless .. I also wonder how many millions of britons live overseas (some, or many ?, as a byproduct of overseas colonisation) .. so empty spaces is a byproduct of that. So why shouldn't we open up these empty spaces to make like more affordable to all britons, including the ones overseas who might want to return if only they could afford to.

Note that many britons are now leaving the uk after selling up due to high costs in Britain .. i.e. effectively driven out (even if by the carrot of a big pay-off when buying "relatively" cheaply overseas)

Actually, this discussion just made me realise : High house prices encourages multiculturalism via economic factors (i.e. wealthy foreigners moving in, locals cashing in and moving overseas, and as a dis-incentive for Britons overseas to come back to the UK).

Welcome to Maggie/Blair's Briton : only the wealthy live it up, and the rest run around trying to survive by serving the wealthy.

p.s. High house prices only give the illusion of wealth. It actually is a "hidden" way to raise a huge amount of tax for the government, and it is also a wealth redistribution from the younger generation to the older generation {which is the reverse of what is ideal}, and in the end people end up with huge debts and enslaved to the banks/mortgage providers.

[til661]

And how do you propose to confiscate private land?

The idea that the solution to housing problems is to bulldoze the countryside is ridiculous. There are already measures that are capable of dealing with this. The problem being that the Government is destroying them, e.g subsidised city housing, the destruction of the council house base. Building in the countryside is not only impractical but pointless, what would be the purpose of building housing for key workers in these places...they'd be too far away from their jobs.

[Mandy]

[til661]

[Mandy]

[til661]

I don't think i fit clearly within any of them. But for the purposes of convenience i'll say Social Democrat. but this is getting somewhat off topic.

[Mandy]

Social Democrates believe in a marketplace ... with regulations. The issue here is that the regulations (limiting building) is too restrictive .. and government's efforts to relax this is too little, too late.

Only communists seem to have your extreme opinion of the "marketplace", where you don't seem to consider government regulation of the marketplace. I totally disagree with your opinion that the marketplace is "fundamentally amoral". Only lack of regulations / rules / morality abuse the marketplace, i.e. extreme right wing policies.

[til661]

Ummmm, maybe because you didn't mention government regulation did you you said let the market place decide, so try and make yourself clear.

You're getting confused, the government regulation of the market is not 'the market' it is government regulation. the market as an entity is fundamentally amoral hence the need for regulation.

[Mandy]

My earlier posting said "is it right for so much land to be legally restricted to farm land use only."

The issue is where does the government draw the line as to how much "green belt" or "brownfield" land to release every year. Not a total free-for-all (after all, there is conservation areas)

[til661]

It is amoral for the simple reason that the only purpose of its existence is to create profit. Harm/benefit are an irrelevance, in exactly the way a corporation is an amoral entity. shell don't destroy villages in africa for fun they do it for profit and the harm caused is irrelevant. Note i didn't say immoral.

[faceless]

bad apples? The entire system is based on greed.